HSM is above all a history site. When you ask how quantitative, my pencil headed brain says this is unanswerable because I don't use words like not much, a bit more, medium, large, huge, and gigantic. Since I can't give you a number between 0 and 1 inclusive followed by a numerical statement of confidence, I can't answer your sentence followed by the question mark.
That being said, we focus purely on questions of the history of science or mathematics here. Without exception, a question is a question of history, and the answer should be an answer of history. Many of us are mathematicians, and so you could expect accuracy in quantitative responses to an appropriate question.
A question about the details of a calculation may or may not be a question about the history of science and/or mathematics. If it is not, it would probably (hopefully) be closed here.
The post you reference on physics.se could possibly fit here, but the OP there really only appears to be interested in an arithmetic explanation of a discrepancy. He is trying to understand the discrepancy.
In conclusion, the question of "how quantitative" demands a quantitative answer, the likes of which I would never provide without empirical data and statistical analysis. None of my peers would do that either, and if one were to give such a statement without solid statistics, the rest of us would light them up. Again, there are mathematicians here, and so while the answers might not appear to be mathematical (as they should typically not), mathematical inaccuracies would not likely survive here for long.